TERM PAPER ON LEGAL & JUDICIAL

ETHICS

Submitted to:

Atty. Romeo Salinas

Submitted by:

Tan, John Lester A.

2014109665

Saturday 1:00-3:00pm
 INTRODUCTION

The field of legal ethics is bounded, as it were, by a four-fold relation. Both the law and
practice have established the lawyer's relation to the courts, to his clients, to the bar and to the
public. The norms bearing on these have their positive source in the Rules of Court, judicial
decisions and the Canons of Professional Ethics. The Canons of Professional Ethics for lawyers
in the Philippines were adopted by the Philippine Bar Association in 1917 and again in 1946;
and these were derived from the Canons of the American Bar Association of 1908 (Malcolm,
Legal and Judicial Ethics). The Canons have been cited and applied by the Supreme Court in
disciplinary cases of lawyers and constitute, to a large measure, the ethical guide to the conduct
of the lawyer's professional affairs.

LEGAL ETHICS, DEFINED.

It is the branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney owes to the
court, to his client, to his colleagues in the profession and to the public (Malcolm, Legal and
Judicial Ethics [1949]) as embodied in the Constitution, Rules of Court, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, Canons of Professional Ethics, Jurisprudence, Moral Law, and
Special Laws.

SIGNIFICANCE OF LEGAL ETHICS

The practice of law which covers a wide range of activities characteristic of the legal
profession, including the pursuit and defense of clients rights and interests before the courts,
will be transgressive, anarchic, riotous, lawbreaking, defiant and disobedient to courts if there
are no sets of governing rules to limit the parameters and tame the exercise of the profession.

Legal Ethics will guard against the abuses and ills of the profession, such as dishonesty,
deceit, immorality, negligence, slothness, lack of diligence and the many forms of malpractice of
the Members of the Bar. On the positive side, it will raise the standard of the legal profession,
encourage and enhance the respect for the law, assure an effective and efficient administration
of justice, assist in the keeping and maintenance of law and order in coordination with the other
Departments of the Government. It also provides the basis for the weeding out of the unfit and
the misfit in the legal profession for the protection of the public.
 ORIGINAL BASES OF LEGAL ETHICS

The original bases of Legal Ethics are the following:

1. Canons of Professional Ethics

2. Supreme Court Decisions

3. Statistics

4. Constitution

5. Treatises and Publications

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP)

It is the national organization of lawyers created on January 16, 1973 under Rule 139-A,
Rules of Court, and constituted on May 4, 1973 into a body corporate by Presidential Decree
No. 181. A lawyer does not automatically become a member of the IBP chapter where he
resides or works after becoming a full-fledged member of the Bar. He has the discretion to
choose the IBP Chapter he wants to join (Garcia vs. De Vera, 418 SCRA 27). Without paying
the IBP dues, a lawyer cannot engage in the practice of law, no matter how limited is his
practice (Santos, Jr. vs. Llamas, 322 SCRA 529). The Integrated Bar shall be strictly non-
political, and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be
penalized accordingly. No lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory
office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible
for election of appointment to any position in the Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof shall be
considered ipso facto resigned from his position as of the moment he files his certificate of
candidacy for any elective public office or accepts appointment to any judicial, quasi-judicial, or
prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof (Rule
139 A, Section 13). Under Rule 139 B, the IBP is given the power to entertain cases of
disbarment filed before it, or cases filed before the Supreme Court and referred to it for
investigation, report, and recommendation. It does not, however, have the power to suspend or
disbar. Its recommendations are subject to appeal to the Supreme Court which alone has the
prerogative to disbar.
 GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF THE IBP

The general objectives and purposes of the IBP are the following:

1. To elevate the standards of the legal profession,

2. To improve the administration of justice;

3. To enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibilities more effectively.

4. To assist in the administration of justice;

5. To foster and maintain, on the part of its members, high ideals of integrity, learning,
professional competence, public service and conduct;

6. To safeguard the professional interests of its members;

7. To cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood;

8. To provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law reform, pleading,
practice and procedure, and the relations of the Bar to the Bench and to the public, and
publish information relating thereto;

9. To encourage and foster legal education; and

10. To promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and adjective law,
and make reports and recommendations thereon.

PRACTICE OF LAW, CONCEPT

The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles
and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in
court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of
pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the
preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It
embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law.
An attorney engages in the practice of law by maintaining an office where he is held out to be-
an attorney, using a letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling clients in legal
matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about pending litigation, and fixing and collecting
fees for services rendered by his associate. (Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd ed.)

Generally, to engage on the practice of law is to any of those acts which are
characteristic of the legal profession (In Re: David, 93 PHIL. 461). It covers any activity, in or
out of court, which requires the application of law, legal principles, practice or procedure and
calls for legal knowledge, training and experience (PLA vs. Agrava, 105 PHIL. 173).

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of
law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to
perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to
give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree
of legal knowledge or skill." (111 ALR 23).

The practice of law is not a property right, but a mere privilege (In Re: Scott, 53 Nev.
24, 292 P. 291) and as such must bow to the inherent regulatory power to the Court to exact
compliance with the lawyers public responsibilities. (In Re: Edillon, 84 SCRA 568).

The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the strict intellectual
and moral qualifications required of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient
administration of justice (In Re: Argosino, 1997).

In Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava, the Court elucidated that the practice of
law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of
pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of
such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition,
conveyancing. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in
matters connected with the law, incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services
contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage,
enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting
proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to
constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work
done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and
conditions.
 In the practice of his profession, a licensed attorney at law generally engages in three
types of professional activity: First, legal advice and instruction to clients to inform them of their
rights and obligations; Second, preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of
legal principles not possessed by ordinary layman; Finally, appearance for clients before public
tribunals which possess power and authority to determine rights of life, liberty, and property
according to law, in order to assist in proper interpretation and enforcement of law (Ulep vs.
Legal Clinic Inc., 223 SCRA 378).

BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW

The basic characteristics of the practice of law are the following:

1. Practice of law is not a matter of right but merely a privilege bestowed upon
individuals who are also known to possess good moral character (Tan vs. Sabandal, 206
SCRA 473).

2. Practice of law is not a money-making venture (Canlas vs. CA, 164, SCRA 160). It is
a calling that, unlike mercantile pursuits which enjoy a greater deal of freedom from government
interference, is impressed with public interests, for which it is subject to State regulation
(Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. vs. CA, 181 SCRA 377).

3. Practice of law cannot be assigned or inherited, but must be earned by hard study and
good conduct (In Re: Clifton, 155, Am. 324).

4. Practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions (Adez Realty vs. CA, 251
SCRA 201).

5. Practice of law is reserve only those who are academically trained in law and
possessed of good moral character not only at the time of his admission to the Bar but even
more so, thereafter, to remain in the practice of law (People vs. Tuanda, 181 SCRA 692).

6. Practice of law is a profession and not a business as it is an essential art in the

administration of justice, a profession in pursuit of which pecuniary reward is considered as
merely incidental; it is a pursuit of learned art in the interest of public service (Koscoe Pound,
The Lawyer From Antiquity to Modern Times).
 PERSONS ENTITLED TO PRACTICE OF LAW

Section 1. Who may practice law. Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member
of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who
is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law. (Rule 138, Section 1, Rules of
Court).

ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW

The Supreme Court has the power to control and regulate the practice of law. Thus, the
Constitution, under Article VIII, Sec. 5 (5) provides:

Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the under privileged.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO CANNOT PRACTICE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES

The public officials who cannot practice law in the Philippines are the following:

1. Judges and other officials as employees of the Supreme Court (Rule 148, Sec. 35,
Rules of Court);
2. Officials and employees of the OSG (Ibid.);
3. Government prosecutors (People v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109);
4. President, Vice-President, members of the cabinet, their deputies and assistants (Art.
VIII Sec. 15, 1987 Constitution);
5. Members of the Constitutional Commission (Art IX-A, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution);
6. Members of the Judicial Bar Council (In Re: Appointment of Atty. Melvin, as JBC
Member, May 14, 1992);
7. Ombudsman and his deputies (Art. IX, Sec. 8 (2nd par), 1987 Constitution);
8. All governors, city and municipal mayors (R.A. No. 7160, Sec. 90); and
9. Those prohibited by special law.

PRACTICE OF LAW AS A PROFESSION

The practice of law is a profession, a form of public trust, the performance of which is entrusted
only to those who are qualified and who possess good moral character (Collantes vs.
Renomeron, 200 SCRA 584). If the respect of the people in the honor and integrity of the legal
profession is to be retained, both lawyers and laymen must recognize and realize that the legal
profession is a profession and not a trade, and that the basic ideal of that profession is to render
public service and secure justice for those who seek its aid (Meyer vs State Bar, 2 Call2d 71,
39 P2d 206 [1934]). It is not a business, using bargain counter methods to reap large profits for
those who conduct it (Meyer v. State Bar, 2 Call2d 488, 98 ALR2d 1227 [1963]). From the
professional standpoint, it is expressive three ideals organization, learning and public service.
The gaining of a livelihood is not a professional but a secondary consideration. The professional
spirit the spirit of public service -constantly curbs the urge of that instinct (Re Rothman, 12 NJ
528, 97 A2d 627, 39 ALR2d 1032 [1953]).

PRACTICE OF LAW AS A NOTARY.

The practice of law is imbued with public interest and a lawyer owes substantial duties
not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation,
and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State the administration of justice
as an officer of the court. Accordingly, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high
standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing.

Similarly, the duties of notaries public are dictated by public policy and impressed with
public interest. Notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a
private document to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity
of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution.

In misrepresenting himself as a notary public, respondent exposed party-litigants, courts,

other lawyers and the general public to the perils of ordinary documents posing as public
instruments. Respondent committed acts of deceit and falsehood in open violation of the explicit
pronouncements of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Evidently, respondents conduct
falls miserably short of the high standards of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing required
from lawyers. Thus, he should be sanctioned (Efigenia M. Tenoso vs. Atty. Anselmo S.
Echanez., A.C. No. 8384, April 11, 2013).
 In one case, an administrative case was filed against Atty. Rinen for falsification of an
Extra Judicial Partition with Sale which allowed the transfer to Spouses Durante of a parcel of
land. In Bautista v. Atty. Bernabe, the Court held that [a] notary public should not notarize a
document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed
and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated
therein. The presence of the parties to the deed will enable the notary public to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the affiant. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary
act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public. It converts a private document into a public one, making
it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, notaries public must observe
with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the
confidence of the public in the integrity of public instruments would be undermined. In this case,
Atty. Rinen did not deny his failure to personally verify the identity of all parties who purportedly
signed the subject document and whom, as he claimed, appeared before him on April 7, 1994.
Such failure was further shown by the fact that the pertinent details of the community tax
certificates of Wilberto and his sister, as proof of their identity, remained unspecified in the
deeds acknowledgment portion. Clearly, there was a failure on the part of Atty. Rinen to
exercise the due diligence that was required of him as a notary public exofficio. Thus, Atty.
Rinens notarial commission as revoked and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a
notary public for one year. (Wilberto C. Talisic v. Atty. Primo R. Rinen, A.C. No. 8761,
February 12, 2014).

PROHIBITION AGAINST PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW BY JUDGES

Section 35 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court expressly prohibits sitting judges like Judge
Malanyaon from engaging in the private practice of law or giving professional advice to clients.
Section 11 Canon 4 (Propriety), of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and Rule 5.07 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct reiterate the prohibition from engaging in the private practice of law or giving
professional advice to clients. The prohibition is based on sound reasons of public policy,
considering that the rights, duties, privileges and functions of the office of an attorney are
inherently incompatible with the high official functions, duties, powers, discretion and privileges
of a sitting judge. It also aims to ensure that judges give their full time and attention to their
judicial duties, prevent them from extending favors to their own private interests, and assure the
public of their impartiality in the performance of their functions. These objectives are dictated by
a sense of moral decency and desire to promote the public interest.

Thus, an attorney who accepts an appointment to the Bench must accept that his right to
practice law as a member of the Philippine Bar is thereby suspended, and it shall continue to be
so suspended for the entire period of his incumbency as a judge. The term practice of law is not
limited to the conduct of cases in court or to participation in court proceedings, but extends to
the preparation of pleadings or papers in anticipation of a litigation, the giving of legal advice to
clients or persons needing the same, the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by
which legal rights are secured, and the preparation of papers incident to actions and special
proceedings.

In this case, Judge Malanyaon engaged in the private practice of law by assisting his
daughter at his wifes administrative case, coaching his daughter in making manifestations or
posing motions to the hearing officer, and preparing the questions that he prompted to his
daughter (Sonia C. Decena and Rey C. Decena vs. Judge Nilo A. Malanyaon, RTC, Br. 32,
Pili, Camarines Sur., A.M. RTJ-10-2217., April 8, 2013).

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

The Code of Professional Responsibility is the principal source and basis of the rules of
ethics for members of the Bar who do not belong to the judiciary. For judges and justices, it is
the Code of Judicial Ethic as enhanced by the New Code of Judicial Conducts.

The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to all lawyers in the government service
except the magistrate (Avancena vs. Liwanag, 406 SCRA 300).

SOME SUPREME COURT CASES ON LEGAL AND JUDICIAL AND LEGAL ETHICS

(April 2013 June 2014)

In Obaana, Jr. v. Ricafort, the court held that: Any impression of impropriety, misdeed
or negligence in the performance of official functions must be avoided. This Court shall not
countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration
of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish the faith of the
people in the Judiciary. First, the judges involved solemnized marriages even if the
requirements submitted by the couples were incomplete and questionable. Their actions
constitute gross inefficiency. In Vega v. Asdala, the Court held that inefficiency implies
negligence, incompetence, ignorance, and carelessness. Second, the judges were also found
guilty of neglect of duty regarding the payment of solemnization fees. The Court, in Rodrigo-
Ebron v. Adolfo, defined neglect of duty as the failure to give ones attention to a task expected
of him and it is gross when, from the gravity of the offense or the frequency of instances, the
offense is so serious in its character as to endanger or threaten public welfare. The marriage
documents show that official receipts for the solemnization fee were missing or payment by
batches was made for marriages performed on different dates. Third, the judges also
solemnized marriages where a contracting party is a foreigner who did not submit a certificate of
legal capacity to marry from his or her embassy. This irregularity displayed the gross neglect of
duty of the judges. Fourth, the judges are also guilty of gross ignorance of the law under Article
34 of the Family Code with respect to the marriages they solemnized where legal impediments
existed during cohabitation such as the minority status of one party. Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service defines grave misconduct as a grave offense that carries the extreme penalty of
dismissal from the service even on a first offense. (Office of the Court Administrator vs.
Judge Anatalio S. Necessario, et al., A.M. No. MTJ-07-1691, April 2, 2013).

The Supreme Court held that the respondent judges violated Canons 21 and 6 of the
Canons of Judicial Ethics which exact competence, integrity and probity in the performance of
their duties. Ignorance of the law is a mark of incompetence, and where the law involved is
elementary, ignorance thereof is considered as an indication of lack of integrity. In connection
with this, the administration of justice is considered a sacred task and upon assumption to
office, a judge ceases to be an ordinary mortal. He or she becomes the visible representation of
the law and more importantly of justice. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge
Anatalio S. Necessario, et al., A.M. No. MTJ-07-1691, April 2, 2013).

In this case, Sheriff Collado was charged with failing to disclose in her SALN for the
years 2004 and 2005 certain time deposits, among others. The Supreme Court cited Section 8
of RA 6713 which requires all public officials and employees to accomplish and submit
declarations under oath of their assets and liabilities. The requirement of SALN submission is
aimed at curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official corruption, as well as at
maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. With such disclosure, the public would,
to a reasonable extent, be able to monitor the affluence of public officials, and, in such manner,
provides a check and balance mechanism to verify their undisclosed properties and/or sources
of income. The Supreme Court held that based on Section 8 of RA 6713, all other assets such
as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like, should be declared by
the public official in his or her SALN. In this case, however, it was established that she only
declared the original amount of her time deposits in her SALN for the years 2004 and 2005, and
did not disclose the interests which had eventually accrued on the same. Accordingly, Collado
fell short of the legal requirement stated under Section 8 of RA 6713 and thus should be held
administratively liable for said infraction. (Angelito R. Marquez, et al. v. Judge Venancio M.
Ovejera, etc., et al., A.M. No. P-11-2903, February 5, 2014).

In one case, an administrative complaint was filed against Judge Rojo for notarizing
affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage he solemnized, in violation of Circular No.
190 dated February 26, 1990. Circular No. 190 allows municipal trial court judges to act as
notaries public ex officio and notarize documents only if connected with their official functions
and duties. The Supreme Court held Judge Rojo guilty of violating the New Code of Judicial
Conduct and Circular No. 190, and of gross ignorance of the law. Judge Rojo notarized
affidavits of cohabitation, which were documents not connected with the exercise of his official
functions and duties as solemnizing officer. He also notarized affidavits of cohabitation without
certifying that lawyers or notaries public were lacking in his courts territorial jurisdiction. As a
solemnizing officer, the judges only duty involving the affidavit of cohabitation is to examine
whether the parties have indeed lived together for at least five years without legal impediment to
marry. The Guidelines does not state that the judge can notarize the parties affidavit of
cohabitation. Notarizing affidavits of cohabitation is inconsistent with the duty to examine the
parties requirements for marriage. If the solemnizing officer notarized the affidavit of
cohabitation, he cannot objectively examine and review the affidavits statements before
performing the marriage ceremony. Thus, Judge Rojo was suspended for six months from
office. (Rex M. Tupal v. Judge Remegio V. Rojo, etc., A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842. February 24,
2014).

Judge Larida, Jr. was charged for committing various anomalies and irregularities. The
Supreme Court held that Judge Larida, Jr. committed several lapses, specifically the non-
submission to the Court of the required inventory of locally-funded employees, and his allowing
Marticio to draft court orders. Such lapses manifested a wrong attitude towards administrative
rules and regulations issued for the governance and administration of the lower courts, to the
extent of disregarding them, as well as a laxity in the control of his Branch and in the
supervision of its functioning staff. The omission to submit the inventory should not be blamed
on Atty. Calma as the Branch Clerk of Court. Although it was very likely that Judge Larida, Jr.
had tasked Atty. Calma to do and submit the inventory in his behalf, Judge Larida, Jr. as the
Presiding Judge himself remained to be the officer directly burdened with the responsibility for
doing so. Further, for knowingly allowing detailed employees to solicit commissions from
bonding companies, Judge Larida, Jr. contravened the Code of Judicial Conduct, which
imposed on him the duty to take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against court
personnel for unprofessional conduct of which he would have become aware. (Office of the
Court Administrator v. Judge Edwin C. Larida, Jr., RTC, Branch 18, Tagaytay City, A.M.
No. RTJ-08-2151, March 11, 2014).

In one case, an administrative complaint was filed against Judge Bitas for fixing the
accuseds bail and reducing the same motu proprio. In this case, Miralles was charged with
Qualified Trafficking, which under Section 10 (C) of R.A. No. 9208 is punishable by life
imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000 but not more than P5,000,000. Thus, by
reason of the penalty prescribed by law, the grant of bail is a matter of discretion which can be
exercised only by Judge Bitas after the evidence is submitted in a hearing. The hearing of the
application for bail in capital offenses is absolutely indispensable before a judge can properly
determine whether the prosecutions evidence is weak or strong. The Supreme Court held that
not only did Judge Bitas deviate from the requirement of a hearing where there is an application
for bail, he also granted bail to Miralles without neither conducting a hearing nor a motion for
application for bail. Judge Bitas acts are not mere deficiency in prudence, discretion and
judgment on his part, but a patent disregard of well-known rules. When an error is so gross and
patent, such error produces an inference of bad faith, making the judge liable for gross
ignorance of the law. (Ma. Liza M. Jorda, City Prosecutors Office, Tacloban City v. Judge
Crisologo S. Bitas, RTC, Branch 7, Tacloban City; Prosecutor Leo C. Tabao v. Judge
Crisologo S. Bitas, RTC, Branch 7, Tacloban City, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2376/A.M. No. RTJ-14-
2377, March 5, 2014).

In another case, an administrative complaint for dishonesty was filed against Atty. Molina
for having advised his clients to enforce a contract on complainants client who was never a
party to the agreement. The Supreme Court in dismissing the complaint held that when it comes
to administrative cases against lawyers, two things are to be considered: quantum of proof,
which requires clearly preponderant evidence; and burden of proof, which is on the complainant.
Here, the complaint was without factual basis. The allegation of giving legal advice was not
substantiated in this case, either in the complaint or in the corresponding hearings. Bare
allegations are not proof. Even if Atty. Molina did provide his clients legal advice, he still cannot
be held administratively liable without any showing that his act was attended with bad faith or
malice. The default rule is presumption of good faith. (Atty. Alan F. Paguia v. Atty. Manuel T.
Molina, A.C. No. 9881, June 4, 2014).
SOURCES:

Pineda, Ernesto L., Legal Ethics Annotated, (2009).

Agpalo, Ruben E., Comments on The Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of
Judicial Conduct, (2004).

Sison, Carmelo V., Legal and Judicial Ethics, Philippine Law Journal, (1971).

https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/april-2013-philippine-supreme-court-cases-
on-legal-and-judicial-ethics/

https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/february-2014-philippine-supreme-court-
decisions-on-legal-and-judicial-ethics/

https://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/march-2014-philippine-supreme-court-
decisions-on-legal-and-judicial-ethics/